Will support aircraft be added into the game?

[Whomst'd've]

Hi there. 

I have made a previous topic regarding whether aircraft carriers should be added late game. And polls generally reflected that they should be added, reading the topic also pointed out a recurring trend: "It's complicated". Which to be honest, it is. If you want to read the discussions then head over to that topic here:

However in this topic I'm not here to discuss Aircraft carriers themselves but rather more on the support roles that these planes could fill. Could planes be added as spotters for the battlefleet late game? Could they be used for reconnaissance in the main campaign?  

I would support the introduction of aircraft in a light supporting role not only for the benefits as historically provided in the appropriate time era, but also the respective  influence on shit design. Now Players will have to worry about shooting down these pesky aircraft, hence, will have to devote displacement and money to suitable AA protection. This can be achieved through the use of AA guns, as well as fire controls systems, range finding and radar systems etc. This will essentially lead to more historical ships, with players having to balance anti surface ability and anti air ability (but not to the extent as IRL). And hence a Iowa superstructure covered in anti surface weapons is no longer a great idea. This will also introduce the use of aircraft handling facilities in order to operate these spotter/reconnaissance planes, which themselves coming in all different shapes and sizes (From the setups seen on british capital ships like a refit Warspite, to japanese styles seen on the heavy cruiser Tone).      

Cheers.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Whomst'd've

[gunnyfreak]

like... would I like for them to be added... yes? Aircraft carriers were a big part of naval engagements in the second world war and I'd like for that to be simulated. That said though, This is a game primarily about dreadnoughts, and I'd not like too much attention to be dedicated into making a carrier command game here.

 

maybe aircrafts can be included, but only as off-map support -- if a CV is in the mission area, you can choose to have her launch flights into the mission as support (if you order them at the start, they'll be available. If you order them later, they'll take some time, potentially hours, to arrive) and command of aircraft would only be limited to simple things like choose target, choose attack/retreat, etc. Then, in campaign, there can be missions where CVs are hunted much like TR's, where they're more-or-less vulnerable units for gunships to protect. It won't be entirely realistic since launching aircrafts while enemy ships are something like 20km away is (probably) an entirely realistic prospect, but that might strike a good balance between "having aircrafts" and "keeping focus on battleships".

I do think CV's should if nothing else provide off-map support though, aircraft ranges should be far more than what in-game battles actually cover.

[Cptbarney]

They should, if they start with planes from 1910-1924 then they can get some pretty good test results with planes of that era. Also since planes back then were slow it allows them to make adjustments at a more peaceful grace rather than going mental and stressing over making it way too slow or fast, also it allows them to scale the stats up to around 1949 for planes then (would love jets lol but thats for another time).

I don't see why not and i would love to see carriers as well, but also remember to include to the option to opt-out or turn them of if peeps do not want to play agaisnt and with them in general.

[arkhangelsk]

You know? Despite the time cost, I'll actually Yes this. I don't mind measures to encourage people to use secondaries as long as they are naturally justified. The planes will also allow much more complex tactical scenarios, and if you want planes to be integrated well at both the tactical and strategic levels, you should start ASAP.

[RedParadize]

I have no idea what is their plan are on this topic. As far as I am aware of they never mentioned anything on the subject I would say its probably not planned. Given time and resource they have I would say yes and no, but mostly no. No as active combatant in combat. Yes in campaign and as a passive in combat. I have few suggestion on how it could be implemented at a limited cost:

Passive bonus in combat:
Have deck catapult that provide passive sight and aiming bonus in combat. We do not need to see the aircraft take off or fly. Trough having a plane fly in circle out of AA range could be quite cheap to do.

Campaign only Air combat:
Have carrier, air strike and air combat, but only on the campaign strategic map. When a Air strike hit a fleet, ship AA is taken into consideration. If a ship will get hit by a air strike it will start already damaged when battle start.

That should be relatively easy to do. Then, maybe real air combat could be added in a DLC or expansion. I would find it acceptable.

[ston5883]

I would like to see spotter aircraft and also have the ability to shoot them down. I'm on the fence though about the whole CV thing and ground based aircraft. I think many players though would like to see the AA guns in action and it also brings up the question of using some of the mid sized AA against lighter skinned surface vessels. Something like a 40mm and up against transports and maybe some torp boats.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Adding float planes to appropriate ships for spotting and recon purposes, yes.  Adding aircraft carriers, no.  The carrier was the death of the battleship (and of ships with heavy artillery in general).  They represented a sea change in warfare and made heavy, lumbering behemoths obsolete.  I personally wouldn't want to see carriers in a game about dreadnoughts.

[RedParadize]

1 minute ago, Henry d'Esterre Darby said:

Adding float planes to appropriate ships for spotting and recon purposes, yes.  Adding aircraft carriers, no.  The carrier was the death of the battleship (and of ships with heavy artillery in general).  They represented a sea change in warfare and made heavy, lumbering behemoths obsolete.  I personally wouldn't want to see carriers in a game about dreadnoughts.

I agree with that but there is a problem. By the end of ww1 secondary was more or less obsolete in its ship to ship role too. Its conservative nature of navy that kept them around until they were resurrected as AA/dual purpose gun. Iowa/Yamato tower are looking pretty empty without them. Having a nerfed down version of naval air strike (off combat) would be a decent compromise I think.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Just now, RedParadize said:

I agree with that but there is a problem. By the end of ww1 secondary was more or less obsolete in its ship to ship role too. Its conservative nature of navy that kept them around until they were resurrected as AA/dual purpose gun. Iowa/Yamato tower are looking pretty empty without them. Having a nerfed down version of naval air strike (off combat) would be a decent compromise I think.

That's a pretty good point.  I think as long as aircraft can't be used as an IWin button, they'd be ok.  The key is making them useful without making it a win requirement to have more functioning carriers in your fleet than the opponent.

[Angus MacDuff]

18 minutes ago, Henry d'Esterre Darby said:

Adding float planes to appropriate ships for spotting and recon purposes, yes.  Adding aircraft carriers, no.  The carrier was the death of the battleship (and of ships with heavy artillery in general).  They represented a sea change in warfare and made heavy, lumbering behemoths obsolete.  I personally wouldn't want to see carriers in a game about dreadnoughts.

Indeed.  In our actual history, Aircraft carriers did not prove their worth until WWII.  In a game, where we have all read our history and know their value, we would be building carriers as soon as we can.  We know their value and we know that Battleships cannot survive in the same ocean as a Carrier group.

[ston5883]

With some of the earliest ones I think they could survive. We are talking a plane capacity of only 15 on the Hosho and most of those was probably fighters. If it was kept at that level we could see one maybe two strikes before you had no capability to inflict damage to surface ships.

[Angus MacDuff]

23 minutes ago, ston5883 said:

With some of the earliest ones I think they could survive. We are talking a plane capacity of only 15 on the Hosho and most of those was probably fighters. If it was kept at that level we could see one maybe two strikes before you had no capability to inflict damage to surface ships.

yes but you are referring to actual history there.  The technology for torpedo bombers was available in 1914 and gamers have no problem bypassing the real events.  If a gamer is allowed to build aircraft carriers, he or she will build effective ones and probably nothing but.  Devs would have to seriously restrict our ability to produce carrier attack capability or it would get out of control. 

[Koogus]

If we see catapult aircraft get added I wonder what the chances are for seaplane tenders to be added to the game.

[Hangar18]

3 hours ago, Henry d'Esterre Darby said:

Adding float planes to appropriate ships for spotting and recon purposes, yes.  Adding aircraft carriers, no.  The carrier was the death of the battleship (and of ships with heavy artillery in general).  They represented a sea change in warfare and made heavy, lumbering behemoths obsolete.  I personally wouldn't want to see carriers in a game about dreadnoughts.

It's interesting to see that weve progressed to the point where carriers are slowly going to be relegated to lesser duties. As far as strategic target removal, you can do a lot of the same for a fraction of the cost in with SSGN. and it can be parked for months just about anywhere, and no one would have any idea.

1 hour ago, Koogus said:

If we see catapult aircraft get added I wonder what the chances are for seaplane tenders to be added to the game.

I feel like this would just be an add on to the cargo ships. like you just attach a piece to one.

[Whomst'd've]

15 hours ago, gunnyfreak said:

like... would I like for them to be added... yes? Aircraft carriers were a big part of naval engagements in the second world war and I'd like for that to be simulated. That said though, This is a game primarily about dreadnoughts, and I'd not like too much attention to be dedicated into making a carrier command game here.

 

maybe aircrafts can be included, but only as off-map support -- if a CV is in the mission area, you can choose to have her launch flights into the mission as support (if you order them at the start, they'll be available. If you order them later, they'll take some time, potentially hours, to arrive) and command of aircraft would only be limited to simple things like choose target, choose attack/retreat, etc. Then, in campaign, there can be missions where CVs are hunted much like TR's, where they're more-or-less vulnerable units for gunships to protect. It won't be entirely realistic since launching aircrafts while enemy ships are something like 20km away is (probably) an entirely realistic prospect, but that might strike a good balance between "having aircrafts" and "keeping focus on battleships".

I do think CV's should if nothing else provide off-map support though, aircraft ranges should be far more than what in-game battles actually cover.

I was not really intending to talk about CVs in this topic, just support aircraft u would see carried by cruisers etc. CVs have been discussed in the topic I linked in my OP. 

10 hours ago, RedParadize said:

I have no idea what is their plan are on this topic. As far as I am aware of they never mentioned anything on the subject I would say its probably not planned. Given time and resource they have I would say yes and no, but mostly no. No as active combatant in combat. Yes in campaign and as a passive in combat. I have few suggestion on how it could be implemented at a limited cost:

Passive bonus in combat:
Have deck catapult that provide passive sight and aiming bonus in combat. We do not need to see the aircraft take off or fly. Trough having a plane fly in circle out of AA range could be quite cheap to do.

Campaign only Air combat:
Have carrier, air strike and air combat, but only on the campaign strategic map. When a Air strike hit a fleet, ship AA is taken into consideration. If a ship will get hit by a air strike it will start already damaged when battle start.

That should be relatively easy to do. Then, maybe real air combat could be added in a DLC or expansion. I would find it acceptable.

This is more what I intended. Passive bonuses rather than active ones. 

I would imagine having aircraft handling facilities means you could launch spotter aircraft to increase overall spotting range and also increase the accuracy of main caliber weapons over extended ranges. Downsides to carrying spotter aircraft is having to stop the entire ship in order to retrieve the  aircraft. As well as only having a limited number of these aircraft, and therefore will be required to return to a base to replace aircraft. 

We also know that in the main campaign that submarines will be making an appearance as non-player controlled vessels (from what I last heard), which brings another use for spotter planes. They could spot and direct assets to deal with submarines, and maybe potentially deal with them on their own. That latter part was what HMS Warspite's swordfish floatplane managed to do, sinking the german U-boat U-64, becoming the first aircraft to sink a U-boat in the war. 

And it's not like these aircraft will be essential to winning battles, they are weather dependent, only provide passive bonuses, can be shot down, must return to land to replace, must stop the vessel to retrieve else the lose the plane and late game they become obsolete to advanced radar, sonar and fire control systems. Plus only larger ships can actually handle and operate these planes, the smallest being light cruisers of the Arethusa class and similar. 

[RedParadize]

@Whomst'd've Battle are not lasting longer than plane endurance. We do not need to see seaplanes take off or land. My suggestion had the aim to make planes as easy to implement as possible for dev. I would find it perfectly acceptable if all of the plane stuff happen out of combat mode.

[arkhangelsk]

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

@Whomst'd've Battle are not lasting longer than plane endurance. We do not need to see seaplanes take off or land. My suggestion had the aim to make planes as easy to implement as possible for dev. I would find it perfectly acceptable if all of the plane stuff happen out of combat mode.

Even right now, they give up to 10 hours to finish in Custom Battles. I think a lot of smaller seaplanes can't last that long. I am more on the side that if we are going to do this at all, let's do it right. Let us launch the aircraft and see it fly off and even direct it a bit.

For starters I don't think we should have land based or carrier air. Just seaplanes of the type you can shoot off a battleship. This will ensure the protagonists remain the same as the title.

[RedParadize]

@arkhangelsk
"My suggestion had the aim to make planes as easy to implement as possible for dev."

My point start from the perspective that this feature do not seem to be planned. If its not planned then its not in the budget. I want this game to be a commercial success,I really like that kind of game. Now, what I suggested would not cost much, new 3d model, say 2 or 3, and reusing tower bonus code. If I had to bid on this it would be around 15 man/hours, concept and testing excluded. Adding plane take off, flight, being shot, landing and recuperation and you have 80 man/hours for sure. This could also require reworking the aiming mechanism, wave, movement of ship on wave etc...

[Warbie]

Historically from late 1800s right up until 1920s, main spotters for Naval Fleets were airships/zeppelins. Maybe planes can only be added as a very-late game feature, and only for fire-correction, range-finder support. Would like to see some airships/zeppelins as a passive spotter in the game though. Maybe they could get damaged if they fligh between long range salvos if the projectiles reach that altitude, but they should not be able to be targeted by ships. Late-game planes could only work as a counter to drive the spotter airships off maybe?

[Whomst'd've]

21 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Whomst'd've Battle are not lasting longer than plane endurance. We do not need to see seaplanes take off or land. My suggestion had the aim to make planes as easy to implement as possible for dev. I would find it perfectly acceptable if all of the plane stuff happen out of combat mode.

Even if the plane stuff was happening outside of combat mode, stopping the vessel to pick up the aircraft should be implemented, else lose the aircraft. I would imagine in a chasing scenario where the fleeing ship is faced with the problem of stopping the vessel to pick up their recon bonus and risk being caught, or losing that recon bonus and risk being jumped should be a problem that players have to face. And if the plane were to run out of fuel in combat mode, well that would make a very interesting problem for players to deal with (even if it would only happen in a relatively rear and drawn out engagement). Players may have to adopt real life tactics to deal with these problems. 

 

[Druzki]

On 12/27/2019 at 9:12 AM, Angus MacDuff said:

Indeed.  In our actual history, Aircraft carriers did not prove their worth until WWII.  In a game, where we have all read our history and know their value, we would be building carriers as soon as we can.  We know their value and we know that Battleships cannot survive in the same ocean as a Carrier group.

Keep in mind the majority of ship losses in ww2 were caused by aircraft were because of very underwhelming AA battery coordination(think the yamato's atrocious 25mm) and not enough AA mounts on ships because back then aircraft weren't considered a primary threat. Players will have this hindsight and invest in tons rapid firing  radar guided AA batteries much faster than IRL.

 

Also bad weather amd nighttime will still allow artillery duels between ships with WW2 tech and lower.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Druzki

[Bry7x7x7]

I would like to see at least catapult launched hydroplanes at the very least. Something that helps on the campaign map, but also to spot those far away fleeing ships and help long range firing accuracy.

[arkhangelsk]

On 12/28/2019 at 2:33 PM, RedParadize said:

@arkhangelskI want this game to be a commercial success,I really like that kind of game. Now, what I suggested would not cost much, new 3d model, say 2 or 3, and reusing tower bonus code. If I had to bid on this it would be around 15 man/hours, concept and testing excluded. Adding plane take off, flight, being shot, landing and recuperation and you have 80 man/hours for sure. This could also require reworking the aiming mechanism, wave, movement of ship on wave etc...

I get that, but I'm more in the school of either do it right or not include something at all. Besides...

On 12/27/2019 at 9:25 PM, RedParadize said:

Campaign only Air combat:
Have carrier, air strike and air combat, but only on the campaign strategic map. When a Air strike hit a fleet, ship AA is taken into consideration. If a ship will get hit by a air strike it will start already damaged when battle start.

Something like this could actually be very unpleasant for players because it'll feel more like a lightning strike (kind of like RTW2 suddenly ruling one of your battleships have been sunk by some stupid sub you were not given a chance to fend off  - you can watch that kind of thing off a Youtube video and still feel the greatest sympathy for the unlucky Youtuber) than a justified result.

Ultimatley the result might be the same but if you don't give people the chance to fight this kind of thing off for themselves, it could be very unpopular.

[disc]

In the Imperial Japanese Navy, two-seat spotters had endurances of about five to seven hours. Three-seat recon/scout seaplanes had endurances of seven to fifteen hours. The two-seat Type 95 E8N and the three-seat Type 0 E13A1, the ubiquitous battleship/cruiser seaplanes at the start of WWII, had endurances of 7.0 and 14.96 hours, respectively.

I don't know the endurances for the US SOC Seagull and OS2U Kingfisher, the major US WWII spotter planes, but from ranges I estimate five and six hours, respectively.

Evasive maneuvers and such would decrease available fuel.

 

I want to see spotters and recon aircraft and airships. But it might have to be an artificial balance. From the early days there were considerations for cruiser/battleship fighters. Though torpedo planes took slightly longer to mature than fighters, they famously sank several ships during WWI. By the 1920s, US forces were asking for both fighters and torpedo bombers for use aboard battleships. That spotters and scouts were mounted instead seems less a lack of interest and more a division of labor, with dedicated carriers being introduced. Even spotters and scouts could carry bombs, anyway, especially for anti-submarine patrols.

I imagine it would be hard to implement planes other than spotters/scouts.... Balancing carriers could be impossible.

[Steeltrap]

As a general comment on polls, I have worked on them (internal/staff and external/customer directed) for major corporations in the past and I can attest writing good ones is not as simple as it seems.

One thing, for example, is you ALWAYS ought to provide a "don't know/undecided/want more info" option. Faced with a blunt yes or no, most people will vote 'yes' if the topic is something they think they might want, even if they do so simply to avoid being seen as saying they don't want it and influencing the devs to rule it out.

If I reveal the results on this, we have 33 votes with 87.88% (29) choosing "yeah". That's no surprise whatsoever, in part due to what I said above. To be blunt, the more a poll delivers a massively one-sided result the less valuable it is; commonly due to the topic or potential flaws in its design, or both.

The problem I have with polls like this is they are generally inadequate in their specifics.

What, for example, is meant by "support aircraft"? Does that include the "fire and forget" fighters mounted on ships in convoys, especially the Arctic ones, designed to intercept scouts like the Fw Condor either to drive them off or hopefully shoot them down? 

I'm not at all having a go at you for putting up the poll, it's just I find it mildly frustrating that people say "yes" without having enough relevant info to make an informed choice.

Let's face it, most of us are ALWAYS happy to have more features and toys, lol, so I'm not saying I'm any different from everyone else. 😁

If we ARE going to make polls like this, we owe it to each other AND the devs to flesh out what we mean BEFORE we ask the questions.

I'd suggest saying "we want another bunch of things that require development work but we've no specifics so you work it out" is not very helpful, lol.

 

On 1/1/2020 at 1:16 PM, disc said:

I imagine it would be hard to implement planes other than spotters/scouts.... Balancing carriers could be impossible.

This was pretty much exactly the point I was making over and over in the "should CVs be included" thread. If you implement them accurately, they alter the nature of naval warfare irrevocably.

Bear in mind, too, that whatever ends up on a CV starts off as land based. Not especially relevant in the Pacific, but anywhere you're operating within land based range it is. That's a large zone around Europe including the Med.

I have no particular issue with scout planes. My own preference is they add to the ability to spot things at the strategic map level but have NO role in combat. I know spotting planes were used quite a bit with shore bombardments, but I don't recall them being common or significant in the ship v ship gunnery combat that occurred in WW2, and the 40s are the "end game".

Cheers

p.s. I didn't vote because an "undecided/need more info" option wasn't available.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Steeltrap